Delhi High Court

29,725 judgments

Year:

Gurpreet Singh Sonik v. Commissioner of Customs

29 Aug 2025 · Prathiba M. Singh; Shail Jain · 2025:DHC:7653-DB

The Delhi High Court held that failure to issue a Show Cause Notice within the prescribed time under the Customs Act invalidates detention of goods, ordering release of the petitioner's gold chain.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Customs Act, 1962 Show Cause Notice Detention of goods Appraisement

Bhullu Prashad @ Gullu v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

28 Aug 2025 · Girish Kathpalia · 2025:DHC:7438

The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to the accused in a murder case primarily based on circumstantial evidence and the failure of the key witness to support the prosecution.

criminal appeal_allowed regular bail circumstantial evidence key witness closure report

Smt. Rukshana & Ors. v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi

28 Aug 2025 · Girish Kathpalia · 2025:DHC:7466

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 323, 324, and 34 IPC on the ground of compromise between the parties and in the interest of justice.

criminal petition_allowed quashing of FIR compounding of offences Section 323 IPC Section 324 IPC

Shadab Ali v. The State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

28 Aug 2025 · Girish Kathpalia · 2025:DHC:7456

The Delhi High Court quashed FIR and criminal proceedings under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act where the complainant, now a major, had compromised with the accused and was living happily with him.

criminal petition_allowed quashing of FIR Section 363 IPC Section 366 IPC Section 376 IPC

Abhinav Batra & Ors. v. The State NCT of Delhi and Anr

28 Aug 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:7457

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 354/354(C)/354(D)/34 IPC arising from a matrimonial dispute based on an amicable settlement between the parties, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 482 CrPC matrimonial dispute amicable settlement

Hashmi v. Sameer Dnyandev Wankhede

28 Aug 2025 · Navin Chawla; Madhu Jain · 2025:DHC:7400-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal's order directing opening of the sealed cover and granting promotion, holding that sealed cover procedure is impermissible without issuance of charge-sheet or disciplinary proceedings.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant sealed cover procedure promotion Departmental Promotion Committee charge-sheet

DEFSYS Solutions Private Limited v. Union of India

28 Aug 2025 · Navin Chawla; Madhu Jain · 2025:DHC:7403-DB

The Delhi High Court set aside repeated suspension orders against Defsys Solutions for lack of procedural fairness and absence of material, holding that mere ongoing investigation does not justify suspension under Ministry of Defence Guidelines.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Ministry of Defence Guidelines Suspension of business dealings AgustaWestland case Principles of natural justice

Deepu Kumar v. State

28 Aug 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:7439

The High Court acquitted the appellant of kidnapping and rape charges due to contradictions in the prosecutrix's testimony and lack of corroborative evidence, emphasizing the necessity of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant minor age proof birth certificate evidence sexual offence testimony contradictions in prosecutrix statement

Sonia Jokhani v. Jugal Kishore Jokhani & Anr.

28 Aug 2025 · Anil Ksheterpal; Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar · 2025:DHC:7377-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal against rejection of a partition suit, holding that the plaint disclosed a triable cause of action and was not barred by limitation at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order VII Rule 11 CPC cause of action limitation partition suit

Maj Gen Devendra Arora Retd v. Union of India

28 Aug 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Om Prakash Shukla · 2025:DHC:7499-DB

The Delhi High Court allowed withdrawal of a writ petition with liberty to approach the Armed Forces Tribunal.

administrative other Procedural writ petition withdrawal leave to withdraw Armed Forces Tribunal

Mohd. Savej v. The State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi

28 Aug 2025 · Manoj Kumar Ohri · 2025:DHC:7478

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant for robbery with use of a deadly weapon and possession of stolen property, affirming that credible eyewitness testimony corroborated by recovery of stolen articles suffices to sustain conviction despite minor discrepancies and delay.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant robbery Section 392 IPC Section 397 IPC Section 411 IPC

Bindal v. S. N. Sharma

28 Aug 2025 · Navin Chawla; Madhu Jain · 2025:DHC:7389-DB

The High Court held that promotion and seniority can only be claimed from the date of actual appointment, denying notional promotion for delays caused by administrative and candidate-related factors.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant notional promotion seniority fixation administrative delay promotion quota

Manbir Singh v. HC (Min.) Shishu Pal

28 Aug 2025 · Navin Chawla; Madhu Jain · 2025:DHC:7390-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal's order setting aside a major penalty imposed on a Delhi Police Head Constable due to procedural lapses and unchallenged defence evidence, clarifying that withholding increments under Delhi Police Rules is a major penalty but must be proportionate and supported by evidence.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant departmental inquiry Delhi Police Rules withholding increment major penalty

Sachil Sharma & Ors. v. The State NCT of Delhi and Anr

28 Aug 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:7447

The Delhi High Court quashed FIR and criminal proceedings under Sections 498A, 406, 377, and 34 IPC arising from matrimonial disputes based on a voluntary amicable settlement between the parties.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR matrimonial dispute amicable settlement

Abhinav Batra & Ors. v. The State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

28 Aug 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:7448

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC arising from matrimonial disputes based on a genuine amicable settlement between the parties, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR matrimonial dispute Section 498A IPC

Shubham Malik and Anr v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr

28 Aug 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:7453

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under the Indian Electricity Act based on an amicable settlement between the parties, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process and secure justice.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 482 CrPC amicable settlement Indian Electricity Act

Madan Lal Purushottam Das Foods Private Limited v. B. L. Agro Industries Limited

28 Aug 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Om Prakash Shukla · 2025:DHC:7772-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld an interlocutory injunction restraining the appellant from using a deceptively similar trademark and device mark, emphasizing protection of dominant features in composite marks and the likelihood of consumer confusion.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Trademark infringement Interlocutory injunction Composite mark Anti-dissection rule

DDA v. M/S MALIK CONSTRUCTIONS

28 Aug 2025 · Sachin Datta · 2025:DHC:7430
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award partly in favor of the contractor, dismissing the petition challenging the award for lack of patent illegality or perversity under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

civil petition_dismissed Significant arbitral award Section 34 Arbitration and Conciliation Act patent illegality perversity

Union of India v. M/S Incom Icables Pvt. Ltd.

28 Aug 2025 · Sachin Datta · 2025:DHC:7431
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award setting aside a demand for general damages imposed without contractual basis or proof of loss, affirming limited judicial interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

civil petition_dismissed Significant arbitral award general damages breach of contract Indian Railways Standard Conditions of Contract

Karan Cabs Services Pvt. Ltd. v. HCL Technologies Ltd.

28 Aug 2025 · Sachin Datta
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging an arbitral award rejecting minimum guarantee and other claims, holding that judicial interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is limited to patent illegality or perversity, and the arbitrator's factual findings and contract interpretation must be respected.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 patent illegality perversity